Madhya Pradesh High Court refuses to recognise High Court Advocates Bar Association

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently dismissed a petition moved by the High Court Advocates Bar Association against State Bar Council's refusal to recognise it as a separate bar association [High Court Advocates Bar Association vs Bar Council of India and Others]..The Division Bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh said there was no justification for registration of a parallel body when the aim and object of Advocates Act, and Adhivakta Kalyan Nidhi Adhiniyam of 1982 was already being fulfilled through the existing bar association."Prima facie there is no justification for recognizing a parallel body without there being any averment that their members are being not administered the socially beneficial provisions of either the Advocates Act of 1961 or the Act of 1982," the Court said..The High Court Advocates Bar Association, a breakaway faction of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Bar Association, is led by certain Senior Advocates and has a membership of around 330 lawyers.Its application for recognition was rejected by the State Bar Council in 2018 on the ground that only one Bar Association can be given recognition.The bar body then approached the High Court..The Court at the outset noted that the Advocates Act was enacted to have an integration of the Bar into "a single class of legal practitioner known as advocates" .The only division sought to be achieved was to classify the advocates into two classes on the basis of merit - as senior advocates and other advocates, it added. "The purpose of a Bar Association mainly revolves with an object to seek implementation of the welfare schemes for the advocates," it said further..In this context, the Court noted that the 330 odd members of the petitioner-association are already getting benefits of welfare schemes since they also possess the membership of High Court Bar Association or district Bar Association which are recognised by the Bar Council."There is neither a pleading of non-availability of welfare scheme benefits nor any averment in this regard," the Court said..Hence, it concluded that there was no illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety in the decision of the State Bar Council. "Thus, when it is not contended that by denying the recognition, the act of the State Bar Council has caused any affect to the fundamental freedom of petitioner Association, it cannot be said that petitioners have any right to seek separate recognition without there being any object for the same, specially when it has failed to make out a case that its members are being denied benefits of the welfare scheme, which they are even otherwise getting by virtue of their dual membership, High Court Bar Association or district Bar Association which are recognized Bar Associations," the Court ruled..Senior Advocates Anil Khare, Manoj Sharma and Sanjay Agrawal with Advocates KN Fakhruddin, Rajmani Mishra Abhishek Gulatee and Manoj Kumar Rajak represented the High Court Advocates Bar Association.Advocate Udyan TiwariI represented the Bar Council of India.Advocate Vipin Yadav represented State Bar Council.Advocate Sanjay Verma represented Madhya Pradesh High Court Bar Association.Advocate Ravindra Gupta represented Democratic Lawyers Forum..[Read Judgment]